Thread regarding Intel Corp. layoffs

Response from lawyer:

That is interesting. Although it is true that they violated the WARN Act in failing to provide the required amount of notice, the fact that they are paying you for 60 days (after the time of your lay off) means that you will not have any damages and, therefore, there are no penalties for the violation

I have been talking to my lawyer and just forward this article to him and waiting response. Will keep you posted.

Hi Anonymous116229,

Why dont you please post the contact info of lawyers who are taking up these wrongful termination cases? That will be great service to already battered ones among us.

Hi Anonymous116229,

Why dont you please post the contact info of lawyers who are taking up these wrongful termination cases? That will be great service to already battered ones among us.

Anonymous116191, isn't the number greater than 499? I thought the actual total number is greater than 1000. If so, Intel is still violating.

All kinds of companies violate WARN all the time - search for the info - you'll see tons of references. There are attorneys who specialize in this kind of stuff, I am sure if they were to pay attention here the'd be able to find enough material for a hefty class action...

It sounds like Intel did violate the WARN Act. They more than likely did this because they didn't want to have give out the quarterly bonus and the EPP to them. Intel violates the law in order to save money. All employees affected by this layoff should get a lawyer and hammer them. Or at the very least, turn them in to the FEDS and States (that have the same law to - California).

Actually, Intel has clearly violated the WARN Act. In the General Provisions alone it clearly states:

"General Provisions

WARN offers protection to workers, their families and communities by requiring employers to provide notice 60 days in advance of covered plant closings and covered mass layoffs. This notice must be provided to either affected workers or their representatives (e.g., a labor union); to the State dislocated worker unit; and to the appropriate unit of local government.

Employer Coverage

In general, employers are covered by WARN if they have 100 or more employees, not counting employees who have worked less than 6 months in the last 12 months and not counting employees who work an average of less than 20 hours a week. Private, for-profit employers and private, nonprofit employers are covered, as are public and quasi-public entities which operate in a commercial context and are separately organized from the regular government. Regular Federal, State, and local government entities which provide public services are not covered."

Intel will more than likely claim they gave the 60 days notice by giving 2 months severance pay. However, nowhere in the law does it state a company can do this.

" Who Must Receive Notice

The employer must give written notice to the chief elected officer of the exclusive representative(s) or bargaining agency(s) of affected employees and to unrepresented individual workers who may reasonably be expected to experience an employment loss. This includes employees who may lose their employment due to "bumping," or displacement by other workers, to the extent that the employer can identify those employees when notice is given. If an employer cannot identify employees who may lose their jobs through bumping procedures, the employer must provide notice to the incumbents in the jobs which are being eliminated. Employees who have worked less than 6 months in the last 12 months and employees who work an average of less than 20 hours a week are due notice, even though they are not counted when determining the trigger levels.

The employer must also provide notice to the State dislocated worker unit and to the chief elected official of the unit of local government in which the employment site is located."

Above show who's should get the notification, which is everyone laid off at Intel. Here's the gotcha for Intel in the WARN Act:

" Form and Content of Notice

No particular form of notice is required. However, all notices must be in writing. Any reasonable method of delivery designed to ensure receipt 60 days before a closing or layoff is acceptable.

Notice must be specific. Notice may be given conditionally upon the occurrence or non-occurrence of an event only when the event is definite and its occurrence or nonoccurrence will result in a covered employment action less than 60 days after the event.

The content of the notices to the required parties is listed in section 639.7 of the WARN final regulations. Additional notice is required when the date(s) or 14-day period(s) for a planned plant closing or mass layoff are extended beyond the date(s) or 14-day period(s) announced in the original notice."

Designed to ensure receipt is the key. Intel "did not", I repeat, "did not" meet the WARN Act based on everything I just laid out. Intel probably handed this lay off action to a RCG lawyer who screwed the pooch. No doubt Intel is trying to stave this issue off now. They are probably getting ready to pass on a message to all laid off employees that they met the law with the severance package, but I welcome everyone here to review the law and see Intel did not meet the law.

Here's the short of this story, if you were laid off and did not receive a Below Average or IR rating, you receive success but somehow your manager screwed you and gave you an SSL4/5, and you signed the severance package release....Intel violated that law which null and voided that agreement (which was clearly outlined in the document).

I'm shocked 30 lawyers are here now grabbing up as many people as they can.

Intel meets the WARN Act law due to this stipulation:

"If 50 to 499 workers lose their jobs and that number is less than 33 percent of the employer’s total, active workforce at a single employment site;"

Not sure how somebody can be misinformed over this bullet in the law.

I'm surprised nobody has posted up a contact. But that's how things go these days.

Please post if you know more